Ratna's Review on Israel, Zionism and Peace - Latest Commentshttp://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php?blog=5&tempskin=_atom&disp=commentsb2evolution2015-03-03T18:41:46ZIn response to: Hamas victory in the Palestinian electionsWendy Leibowitz [Visitor]http://www.wendytech.comhttp://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/hamas_victory_in_the_palestinian_electio?blog=5#c9282006-02-09T20:29:31Z2006-02-09T20:29:31Z
Here's one more article that is making waves, from Foreign Policy magazine:
http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3360

Getting Real With Hamas
By Nathan J. Brown
Posted February 2006

If President Bush and the European Union demand too much, too soon from Hamas, the effort could backfire and make things worse for the Palestinians, Israelis, and Western diplomacy.

End to aid? The United States and European Union have threatened to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority.

Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images

In Washington and Brussels, Hamas’s landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections poses an immediate dilemma: what to do with all the funding for the Palestinian Authority? Although they are still coordinating their positions, the United States and European Union are leaning toward linking financial support to fundamental changes by the triumphant Islamist movement. In his January 31 State of the Union address, President Bush said “[T]he leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.”

The conditions are reasonable enough, but they must be accompanied by careful thinking about how to measure compliance and progress. Setting conditions on Hamas may force it to confront difficult choices, but pressure applied clumsily will easily backfire. Just as bad, the United States and Europe could get handcuffed to a policy they will find it difficult to extricate themselves from later.

Cutting off funding entirely is a bad option that may provoke economic collapse and humanitarian disaster in the West Bank and Gaza. The demise of the Palestinian Authority would result in a leaderless society in a continuous state of low-level warfare with Israel. Islamists in the region who have argued in favor of democratic change will find themselves unable to answer the charge that the international community will never accept Islamist parties in power. It’s possible, alternatively, that Hamas would stave of fiscal collapse by turning to Iran and Saudi Arabia for funding—an alignment hardly likely to serve either U.S. or Israeli interests.

Accommodating a Hamas-led government and keeping international aid flowing may be more effective—but only if it supports the long-term goal of peace. Is that possible? Or is the group’s agenda simply too extreme? Hamas, after all, rejects a two-state solution and maintains a right to resistance—and the group’s definition of resistance includes murderous attacks on civilian targets.

Therefore, conditioning aid is a sound approach. Still, presenting demands for immediate change in stark and aggressive terms will likely elicit only resistance. Hamas is a movement that prides itself on its principles and is unlikely to abandon them easily. Even if some of its leaders wanted to shift positions, the movement’s ponderous decision-making structures would make it difficult to do so in the face of outside pressure. Any change in Hamas will likely be gradual.

As much as possible, the West should allow pressures from within the Arab and Muslim world to work. It’s important to recognize that the Palestinians themselves may demand a more moderate approach to Israel. Hamas is extremely sensitive to Palestinian public opinion and recognizes that the majority of voters actually favored parties supporting a two-state solution. (Hamas’s electoral campaign avoided mention of its hard-line position on Israel.) Other mainstream Islamist groups in the region—looking to Palestine as a test case—are unlikely to criticize (and may even cheer) a moderation of the Hamas position if it demonstrates that Islamists can govern effectively.

But if Hamas will not repudiate its position on Israel and terrorism immediately, what realistic benchmarks might be used to judge its moderation? What sort of steps might assure Israelis that a viable negotiating process is possible despite the Hamas landslide?

The demand that Hamas recognize Israel can be converted into several different formulas, some of which Hamas leaders have hinted (but only hinted) might be acceptable. For instance, Hamas might allow moderate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with Israel as he pleases, with any resulting agreement subject to a referendum. Or it might allow the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, Israel’s formal negotiating partner) to bargain with Israel, with any final agreement subject to approval by the body that oversees the PLO, the Palestine National Council. These mechanisms would allow Hamas to hold to its positions while still bowing to political realities.

None of these approaches offers guaranteed success, and the prospects for failure are substantial. But there will be plenty of time to deal with the consequences of failure. All players should now avoid locking themselves into positions they will regret later. If prospects for Arab democracy, democratic Islamic political movements, and Israeli-Palestinian peace are to survive the Hamas landslide victory, creative benchmarks rather than rigid slogans must be the guide.

Nathan J. Brown is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, professor of political science at George Washington University, and author of Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords. He served as an observer for the Palestinian elections as a member of the National Democratic Institute/Carter Center team.
]]>In response to: Hamas victory in the Palestinian electionsWendy Leibowitz [Visitor]http://www.wendytech.comhttp://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/hamas_victory_in_the_palestinian_electio?blog=5#c9242006-02-09T17:35:34Z2006-02-09T17:35:34Z
Just a little (perhaps naive) hope that things are not all grim. I don't think that the Palestinians voted for terrorism. THey voted against corruption.
Best wishes, Wendy in Washington
Please check out http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=251
“The 2006 Palestinian Elections: What Next?”
Transcript of Remarks by Dalal Hasan, Edward Abington and Shibley Telhami
For the Record No. 242 (8 February 2006)*]]>In response to: Hamas victory in the Palestinian electionsShimon Z. Klein [Visitor]http://www.shimonzk.blogspot.comhttp://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/hamas_victory_in_the_palestinian_electio?blog=5#c8332006-01-28T17:52:19Z2006-01-28T17:52:19ZIn response to: Something new to sayscopus [Member]http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/something_new_to_say?blog=5#c842005-11-15T21:54:56Z2005-11-15T21:54:56Z
Thanks for the update. If you could leave another post here with links to some of the article in English at the site perhaps some people will have a look.

Also, on the Dutch blog here, it would be good to post a link to some of the Dutch articles.

- Andre]]>In response to: Disengagement Critics Were Mistakenratna [Member]http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/disengagement_critics_were_mistaken?blog=5#c662005-09-24T17:05:16Z2005-09-24T17:05:16Z
I have heard and read a lot of opposition to the disengagement by the left. They not only said it should be coordinated better with the Palestinians, but opposed it because Israel doesn't withdraw at the same time from the West Bank too. They say Israel has withdrawn from Gaza because they wanted to get rid of it anyway and not as a concession to the Palestinians. They say Israel did it only to strengthen it's hold on the West Bank. I also heard more than once that Sharon wouldn't carry it out and only announced it to please the USA. It is true that Israel left Gaza for pragmatic reasons and not for love of the Palestinians, but those people neglect the fact that, as you wrote, disengagement shows that Israel can stand up against the settlers and execute a decision against their will. Many on the left are of the opinion that Sharon can do no good, and so disengagement can't be good.
I don't overlook the opposition of the right and the 'Greater Israel' advocates. However, their predictions that disengagement would cause a civil war and that thousends of soldiers would refuse to carry out evacuation orders, proved to be wrong. They fear that more 'disengagements' will follow, and I hope they are right, but this will only happen if the Palestinians keep some order in Gaza and Abbas acts against Hamas. Yesterday Hamas fired the first qassams into Israel after disengagement, and today Israel fired it’s first missiles into Gaza after disengagement :-(. However, the PA took a strong stance against Hamas' victory rallies after an explosion left at least 15 people dead, and challenged its claim that an Israeli airstrike is to blame for it.

Ratna
]]>In response to: Disengagement Critics Were MistakenWendy Leibowitz [Visitor]http://www.zionism-israel.orghttp://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/disengagement_critics_were_mistaken?blog=5#c642005-09-22T20:17:02Z2005-09-22T20:17:02Z
One small quibble: you say that those on the LEFT were proven wrong...you're correct that there was opposition by some on the left who wanted extensive coordination with the Palestinians. But please don't overlook the opposition on the RIGHT to disengagement. The RIGHT-WING in Israel, which is fanatically attached to the settlements, is the main obstacle to Israel's becoming a financially independent, truly democratic state. They define "Zionism" in expansionist territorial terms. This disengagement showed that it is possible to stand up to them, and how necessary it is to do so, for Israel's future.
B'Shalom, In Peace,
Your Friend on the Left,
Wendy in Washington, D.C. ]]>In response to: Disengagement Critics Were MistakenShimon Z. Klein [Visitor]http://www.shimonzk.blogspot.com/http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/disengagement_critics_were_mistaken?blog=5#c552005-08-27T06:13:37Z2005-08-27T06:13:37Z
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a change of heart in Hamas. They stand a very strong chance of making serious inroads into Mahmoud Abbas's power base in the upcoming Palestinian elections.One of two things could happen.

1. Hamas could become more pragmatic if elected and discard their anti-Israel existence manifesto or at least put their manifesto on hold. Hamas has to do this in order that stability in the Palestinian areas could be maintained which could encourage foreign aid or investment.

2. Hamas could carry on the terror unabated in the hope of Israel disengaging from the West Bank. It worked in Gaza and perhaps, from their point of view it would work again in the West Bank. Hamas could remain adamant in not recognizing Israel's right to exist.

The future of peace lies in the hands of Hamas and her allies and not in Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority who are weak and ineffectual in combating terror. There is not much room for optimism in the future.